I'm pretty sure that if I buy a Scott Turow hardcover, I can then rip it from its binding, shove it through the scanner and make my own PDF. From that point on, I can paste it all back together, cross out Turow's name and write "BY TIM CUSHING" all over the cover and put it in the 25-cent bin at the next garage sale, all without fear of litigious reprisal.

There's a fanfic story in there somewhere... involving a beer glass... or something.

An artist decides to take the bold step of going royalty-free in order to see where it ends up and what the world makes of it. Previously I had never heard of Shuho Sata. Now I have. See what I did there?

Perhaps the studios are recognizing that they're better off no longer throwing good money after bad.

Since I travel a lot for work, the news that hotel locks are easily hackable has got me concerned. I already have to hide my PVC suit from the maid and now this?! Needless to say I'll be checking my hotel bill extras for '1x electronic door lock - $50'.

Whilst on the subject of security... this week Mike wrote an excellent post which was about a scientist who is a bank robber. Apparently he was so good at it Chris Nolan contacted him about making a movie about his life. I didn't really read it, I just skimmed the post to the last paragraph where he wrote "this other story that Cerf told at a different Moth event about his life as a bank robber".

Speaking of DMCA notices, no sooner than was LendInk back up and running, they received a 'Congratulations' card.. no wait... it was a DMCA notice! Timothy's final summary is what made it hit my favorites list however;

As an author myself, I can't tell my peers how liberating it is to not give a damn about anyone who wishes to share my work. It alleviates me of all the drama against readers. It alleviates me of all potential missteps against legitimate services. It alleviates me of the responsibility for any ripple effects those missteps might cause. Have I read every word of the contracts I've signed? Yes. Do I understand every word of them. Of course not. Because I don't have to.

Is it just me or is spending time with the TSA like spending time with your parents? If they're not criticizing your choice of fashion, they're drilling you for every little detail about what your future plans are... who you're seeing... are you an American citizen.... Now as someone who has had their arse felt more than once by the border agency divas, I know the humiliation that can come from a border couture faux pas. But when they start smiling and asking you about your trip, that's when it gets really creepy, as summarized by Tim C;

Here's the problem, though. It's nearly impossible for the average human being to chat normally with someone who has the power to indefinitely detain or otherwise screw up their travel plans for any number of nebulous "violations." There's no such thing as an innocuous or friendly question when it comes to an agency with a reputation for acting irresponsibly, vindictively and ignorantly, depending on the situation. No one is ever going to feel comfortable just handing out additional personal information, no matter how anecdotal, to someone who can use any misstep as an excuse to search, detain or otherwise inconvenience anyone and everyone.

Is it really going to matter that your files are not transferable when Apple or Amazon close up shop and banish all your purchased content to the nether world of digital services? That is a more pressing question. While you may live to a ripe old age, the services and technologies you use typically have a far shorter shelf life.

Re: Night of the Brown Shirts

Is it really going to matter that your files are not transferable when Apple or Amazon close up shop and banish all your purchased content to the nether world of digital services?

I have seen this point raised dozens of times since the late 90's. And Company X DuJour and Company Y DuJour did indeed go out of business (or abandon the business or just keep *buffering* (that one still hurts ;)). In almost every case IIRC, the sucker that paid the money and allowed DRM to contaminate their machine was:

S.O.O.L.

And when this is going to change? Never. Screwing people is just "doing business".

To paraphrase what someone said in the Techdirt item the other day - what you've identified is one of the main reasons that people "pirate".

The Associated Press reports on a massive cheating scandal at Harvard:

Harvard University is investigating whether dozens of undergraduate students cheated on a take-home exam last spring.

School officials said they discovered students may have shared answers or plagiarized on a final exam. They declined to release the name of the class, the students’ names or the exact number being investigated, citing privacy laws.

The undergraduate class had a minimum of 250 students and possible cheating was discovered in roughly half the take-home exams, university officials said Thursday.

Bloomberg reports the investigation is looking at approximately 125 students.

Instapundit reader Scott Wiehle comments: “What’s so pitiful about this story is that about 200 or so of our best and brightest had to cheat on an open book exam at a school where grade inflation is so rampant you would have to cite ayn rand or favorably refer to W. to get a B.”

When you delete a file, it goes into a “trash” folder, and when you direct the computer to “empty” the trash folder the contents of the folder, including the deleted file, disappear. But the file hasn’t left the computer. The trash folder is a waste paper basket; it has no drainage pipe to the outside. The file seems to have vanished only because the computer has removed it from the user interface and so the user can’t “see” it any more. Virginia M. Kendall & T. Markus Funk, Child Exploitation and Trafficking 275-76 (2012); United States v. Flyer, 633 F.3d 911, 918 (9th Cir. 2011); United States v. Gourde, 440 F.3d 1065, 1071 (9th Cir. 2006) (en banc). But it’s still there, and normally is recoverable by computer experts until it’s overwritten because there is no longer unused space in the computer’s hard drive.

“Staleness” is highly relevant to the legality of a search for a perishable or consumable object, like cocaine, but rarely relevant when it is a computer file. Computers and computer equipment are “not the type of evidence that rapidly dissipates or degrades.” United States v. Vosburgh, 602 F.3d 512, 529 (3d Cir. 2010). Because of overwriting, it is possible that the deleted file will no longer be recoverable from the computer’s hard drive. And it is also possible that the computer will have been sold or physically destroyed. And the longer the interval between the uploading of the material sought as evidence and the search of the computer, the greater these possibilities. But rarely will they be so probable as to destroy probable cause to believe that a search of the computer will turn up the evidence sought[.]

Computer procedures such as “defragmenting,” “wiping,” and creating “garbage files” can make deleted computer files very difficult or even impossible to recover. Lange & Nimsger, supra, at 221-24. And encryption may hide files remaining on the hard drive so effectively as to thwart their recovery by computer experts. Kendall & Funk, supra, at 167. Software that wipes the hard drive or overwrites deleted files with garbage data can be bought on line. But it appears that few consumers of child pornography (the producers may be more savvy) understand well enough how their computer’s file system works to grasp the importance of wiping or overwriting their deleted pornographic files or encrypting them securely if they want to avoid leaving recoverable evidence of child pornography in their computer after they’ve deleted it. Anyway this way of thwarting a search has nothing to do with staleness. A child pornographer who wants to render computer files nonrecoverable will first download those he wants to keep to a DVD, which can be hidden outside his home, and then either destroy the computer and get a new, “clean” one, or take steps to assure the complete overwriting of the contents of his hard drive. Nevertheless, despite the availability of software for obliterating or concealing incriminating computer files, the use of such software “is surprisingly rare.” Kendall & Funk, supra, at 276.

No doubt after a very long time, the likelihood that the defendant still has the computer, and if he does that the file hasn’t been overwritten, or if he’s sold it that the current owner can be identified, drops to a level at which probable cause to search the suspect’s home for the computer can no longer be established. But seven months is too short a period to reduce the probability that a computer search will be fruitful to a level at which probable cause has evaporated. . . .

The most important thing to keep in mind for future cases is the need to ground inquiries into “staleness” and “collectors” in a realistic understanding of modern computer technology and the usual behavior of its users. Only in the exceptional case should a warrant to search a computer for child pornography be denied on either of those grounds (there are of course other grounds for denial). But future changes in computer technology may alter this conclusion, and judges as well as law enforcers must be alert to that possibility as well.

Re: Posner on “Staleness” of Digital Evidence

Very good points. I would also add that downloading should always be done through a proxy or VPN. (Avoid TOR, since the government was involved in its development.) Cleaning programs I recommend: Clean Disk Security, Tracks Eraser Pro, and CleanUp!. These are capable of multiple overwrites and wiping. Use a number of cleaning programs, as some will clean what others miss. Wiping both free space and slack space is important.
Your computer keeps track of images you have viewed with a file called thumbs.db. To avoid this, search for thumbs.db and use a cleaning program to wipe it out. Then go into Tools> Folder Options> View and check "Do not cache thumbnails". This will prevent thumbs.db from being recreated.
The rest has been pretty well covered in the post to which I replied.
And don't forget the most important security measure of all: keep your mouth shut.

To anyone whom felt disrespected by anything I may have said on this board:

I was only expressing my own opinion. I respect the laws and decisions made by our lawmakers, captains of industry and the difficult positions they are often in. My opinions were heartfelt, but they were just my opinions. Perhaps sometimes it's better to keep ones opinions to themselves. I certainly meant no disrespect and deeply apologize if my opinions were taken as disrespectful.

Sometimes it's easy to step over the line when you perceive you're acting alone in a private setting.

Re:

Disrespected by what? I'm on here every day, read every article and not to insult you or anything...but I don't remember you.
*Does a quick scan of your profile*

I'm confused. Nothing I saw in there was disrespectful. At all. I saw comments about physics, quantum mechanics etc. I didn't see anything that would cause anyone to burst into rage, and even if they did, then it's their fault for being predisposed to getting angry over extremely benign comments.

So what exactly are you apologizing over? As far as I can see, you've done nothing wrong.